Allowed

Pratapram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 Jul 2022SOSA/277/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the application for suspension of sentence and bail under Section 389 Cr.P.C. finding the conviction based on conjectures due to missing witnesses and non-implicating FSL report, considering the appellant's three-year custody and pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

Application for suspension of sentence and bail under Section 389 Cr.P.C. allowed; appellant released on bond till disposal of appeal.

Pratapram Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 277/2022

¶3

Pratapram S/o Shri Bhuraram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Panchla Khurd, Police Station Osiyan, District Jodhpur. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Arora. For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, AGC. Mr. Tarun Dhaka.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶10

Order

¶11

15/07/2022

¶12

The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 14.02.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District in Sessions Case No.05/2020 (CIS No.83/2019):

¶13

Offences	Sentences	Fine
Section 302/34	Life Imprisonment.	Rs.5,000/- in default of
IPC		which to further undergo 3 Months’ S.I.

¶14

The instant application for suspension of sentences has been moved on behalf of the appellant under Section 389 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to release him on bail, during pendency of the appeal.

¶15

Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the application for suspension of sentences as per which, the appellant does not

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

[SOSA-277/2022]

¶18

have criminal antecedents. He has suffered custodial period of more than 3 years.

¶19

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and, have gone through the material available on record.

¶20

A perusal of the impugned Judgment and the record reveals that the prosecution case pertaining to the allegation of murder of Devaram is based on circumstantial evidence plain and simple. Though, as per the FIR (Ex.P/1), two persons named Naina Ram and Deeparam had seen Devaram and an unidentified man proceeding on a motorcycle but neither of these persons were examined at the trial. A perusal and re-appraisal of the judgment rendered by the trial court and the evidence available on record, convinces us that the findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned Judgment for holding the appellant guilty of the offences are sheerly conjectural and based on whims and fancies. Even the FSL Report (Ex.P/39) does not implicate the accused because blood group of the deceased could not be ascertained when serological comparison was done.

¶21

In this background, we are of the view that the appellantapplicant has available to him strong and plausible grounds for assailing the impugned Judgment. Hearing of the appeal is unlikely in the near future. The appellant has remained in custody for more than 3 years.

¶22

In this view of the matter and, having regard to the facts and circumstance as available on record, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, we are inclined to enlarge the

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

[SOSA-277/2022]

¶25

appellant on bail while suspending the sentences awarded to him by the trial court, during pendency of the appeal.

¶26

Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of

¶27

sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, vide judgment dated 14.02.2022 in Sessions Case No.05/2020 (CIS No.83/2019) against the appellant-applicant Pratapram , shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 16.08.2022 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶28

That he/she/they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

¶29

That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

¶30

Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

¶31

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicant(s) was/were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In

¶32

(4 of 4)

¶33

[SOSA-277/2022]

¶34

case the said accused applicant(s) does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

¶35

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶36

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶37

18-Tikam/Prashant/-

Pratapram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratapram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Chandra Purohit Vs Union of India

M L Paliwal Vs Union of India

Dinesh Rajpurohit Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Rama Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish Vs the State of Rajasthan

Madan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan